A Kentucky man who was arrested for DUI has said his erratic driving was less to do with alcohol and more to do with the oral sex he was receiving from his passenger at the time.
Jason Kircher was pulled over by cops after being clocked at 66mph in a 55 mph zone on Interstate 64, the Courier Journal reports.
An officer spotted …

"possession of an open alcoholic container"

In many US states

... it's an offense to have an open can, or bottle of booze, irrespective of who was drinking it.

ISTR in Louisiana (?) it was illegal to have alcoholic beverages in the cabin of the car - they had to go in the trunk, or the bed of the pickup. That's one of the reasons the cops shine their torches into the car when the pull someone, apart from the obvious check for a hidden passenger or firearm.

Welcome to the united states of America

In most of the USA it is illegal to:

1. Have an open container with alcohol outside private premises. An open bottle in your car is actually an offence.

2. You are not allowed to drink until the age of 21. Been busted for that one by the way. Cost me 200£ and a one week conditional discharge subject to mandatory attendance of an alcohol awareness course. The only reason I did not go do jail time was because the judge just came back from a holiday to Europe.

3. You must supply a valid ID to buy alcohol. Most shops will not bother checking if you look old enough, but the law says that they should.

over-21 check

I got asked for ID in the US a few years back when I ordered wine in a restaurant. I was ~45 at the time. Still not sure if I should have been flattered, or if the waiter really needed a Specsavers trip...

@ Welcome to the united states of America

To add to that, in some states even if it is legal to have a closed container of alcohol in your vehicle, it can still be considered illegal if it is not factory sealed, for example a screw top container which has been opened previously - and then closed again, one that was closed when officers found it! Same applies for a corked bottle of wine apparently.

You do need to explain

Re: Yup, without a doubt...

Actually, I would use the fact that he tried pinning it all on a blow job (indecent exposure plus reckless driving) to argue that he was indeed drunk. If not drunk, then under the influence of an illicit substance. Because let's face it, you have to be in a fairly altered state of mind to think that a policeman is going to buy such an outrageous explanation.